Eastern Armenian 101

[vava]

you are quite welcome but the real thanks should go to Harut Edited February 8, 2005 by vava

[sev-mard]

Inch or mek, indzi karogh a ognel?

 

maladets imast inch a?

 

merci

[Azat]

Russian for good job or bravo

[Armen]

Inch or mek, indzi karogh a ognel?

 

maladets imast inch a?

 

merci

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

So, you did a good job today, ha?

[sev-mard]

So, you did a good job today, ha?  

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

I guess so

[Sip]

Not sure if this was posted here, but I think this site is a great start:

 

http://learnarmenian.com/NonArmenian/NonArmenian.cfm

[nairi]

Hey thanks Sip!

 

I also found this a while back for the Armenian alphabet:

 

http://www.menq.am/tarer_main.htm

 

Yours is good in terms of vocab, mine in terms of sound. Great combination!

[Arpa]

From the above site;

 

> The Armenian Alphabet

> Armenian is separate branch in the Indo-European family of languages.

> The Armenian alphabet was created in 405 A.D. It consists of 39 letters, of

> which 36 were created by the auther of the alphabet Mesrop Mashtots, the

> other 3 were added later. It was meant to suit the sound system of Armenian.

> These 39 letters present all the sounds of Armenian language. There is nearly

> one to one correspondence between the Armenian sounds and the letters that

> present them. The exceptions are the letters ,, which represent

 

You've got to be kidding!

Wow! Now we have 39 letters? How much wealthier can we be?!

As professionally and beautifully constructed, one wishes that the above sites were composed by people who know something about our language.

 

"yev" is a letter??

Yev is "bar/word" not a "tar/letter".

 

How about "ou"? Does not that deserve a place in the Mesropian table?

In fact, I just looked up in the Hanragitaran, and page 173 of Vol. 6, under the topic of Haykakan Gir there is a table where all 36 letters are presented, in addition, not only "yev" is listed as a letter so is "ou" between "tso" and "pyur", and it is presented as the "hyun". Mind you, it does not qualify it as a diphthong but as the letter "hyun". It may be an erratum. However, as mentioned on many occasions before, "yev" is not a letter, it is a word. One of the reasons why it finds its way in the recitation of the ayb ben gim is that, since O and Fe were later additions the "yev" inserted there to distinguish that those two were added, i.e. "yev/and/in addition". Often we hear the alphabet recited as "a b c d.....x y and z. Does that mean "and" is part of the alphabet?

If we were follows that logic then the English "and" would also qualify as a letter. The English/Latin Alphabet has 26 letters. Does it really? Then how about, "ch", "sh", "th", "gh", "kh", "ou", "au", "ti"(as in tion/shun, as in daffinishun :)). That reminds me of an old game. How do you spell "fish"? "ghoti"?

 

Yev is not a letter, it is a word and as such it is given its proper place in the Armatakan, where, after many wandersings it is stated that it is a native Armenian word the closest kin of which is the Greek "epi" (over/above/beyond/in addition etc.)

 

I wish we would put our house in order and have oversight as to who and where is teaching Armenian to unsuspecting audiences.

 

THERE OUGHT TO BE LAW!!!

 

Besides, in one of those sites above the transliteration is all jumbled up where "gim" is transliterated as "g" in some places and as "k" in others, as in "karak" (butter).

Edited February 28, 2005 by Arpa

[Azat]

I am sorry Arpa but I did not understand if you were saying that author of the above site is incorrect or that "yev" should not have been added to the alphabet.

 

In Armenia we did have "yev" as a letter and the alphabet was changed(dont know what year) to contain 39 letters.

[Arpa]

I am sorry Arpa but I did not understand if you were saying that author of the above site is incorrect or that "yev" should not have been added to the alphabet.

 

In Armenia we did have "yev" as a letter and the alphabet was changed(dont know what year) to contain 39 letters.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Parev/Barev Azat/Azad, Inj bes yes?

"yes" means me /I.

 

 

Inch pes du/tun?

 

I can make fun of our so called language that is left to th mercy of half baked "teachers". Don't tempt me.

 

I meant both, that "yev" is not a letter, and that it is a mistake to include it as such. Whether its inclusion is a mistake or a result of gross ignorance of our "teachers" of orthography. In fact, it is not a result of "ignorance" but a case of indoctrination, read sovietization. After more than 15 years does anyone remember what "soviet" means?

Azat, if I were you I would get down on my knees and praise Aramazt for preserving the Diaspora.

The URL below may shed some light about the subject. In fact, during one of those Armenia-Diaspora conferences I asked one of the delegates to please address the orthography issue, as it may be one of the least painful factors that divide us.

 

At the risk of repeating myself for the zillionth time; "Yev" is not a letter. It is a word. It is recited as such, "Hyun Pyur Qe YEV O Fe" to indicate that the last two letters , i.e. O and Fe were added, they are in addition to the original Mesropina Ayb Ben Gim. IT IS NOT A LETTER. IT IS A WORD.

At the risk of repeating myself again. Why is it that "yev" is treated as a letter and "ou"? They both mean the same.

In addition to my previous of the Greek "epi" also consider the Arabic "wa" and the Persian "va/ve" to mean "and".

THe Abeghian orthography all but eliminated the letters Hyun an E, the latter being replaced by Yech in all case except in the casae of "esh", did he preserve that to describe him? It is a wonder that he preserved "yev/eu, yech-hyun" and did not rpleace it with th "yech-ve".

As to your question of when and why it was made so. Blame Manuk Abeghian. As invaluable his work and legacy may be he, in his zeal of sovietization lobbied the Armenian Parliament which in a decree of March 4, 1922 declared the new orthography as official. Thank Aramazt the likes of Abeghian have also bit the same dust as the Soviets. See the URL below again. As I see it it was an undeclared war (as cold as may be) between the Homeland and Diaspora. The Soviets have bit the dust of history. Then, why do we insist on their "internazional" doctrine of ethnic obliteration?

Have I heard rumblings that at one time there was a movement in Yerevan to replace the Mesropian with the Cyrillic?

Azeris did(and now they use the Turko-Latin), since they don't have a Mesrop to fall back on. What is our excuse?

Am I angry??

:angry:

 

 

http://groong.usc.edu/ADconf/200205/ad-20020521.html

 

 

ORTHOGRAPHY, STATE & DIASPORA

 

A Political Analyst's View on Unified Spelling Problem

 

By Haroutiun Khachatrian

 

 

Armenian orthography has existed in two variants for 80 years now,

which has become another dividing factor between Armenia and its

Diaspora. If we overcome this problem, we can say that we are a nation

capable of acting in accord, otherwise, we can hardly do so. Indeed,

the change in our orthography does not affect any external forces'

interests. They won't even notice what orthography we use in

writing. This is only our problem and its solution (whichever variant

we opt for) will certainly contribute to the unity of Armenians and

vice versa.

 

So far, mainly professional linguists have discussed the issue, i.e.

whether it was right or wrong to reject the classical orthography in

1922. I'll try to analyze the problem as a public-political rather

than a linguistic one, since the establishment of unified orthography

in Armenia and in the Diaspora is a political issue that eventually

will have to be solved by politicians.

 

And so: Armenia and a sizable part of the Diaspora, i.e. the Armenians

living in the territory of the former USSR (the so-called `internal

Diaspora'), use the new orthography, and the `external Diaspora' and

also the Armenian Apostolic Church have remained loyal to the

`classical' orthography. A `compromise' between the two systems in

impossible and senseless, as it would mean creating a third

orthography with additional problems. That is, we must make a

decision: either we all adopt the classical spelling system, or we all

use the new one (the notorious problem with the Armenian letter

conveying the sound - a digraph consisting of two elements - has

nothing to do with it, and must be solved in any case). The argument

of those who advocate the new orthography is naturally its easiness,

and those supporting the return to the classical spelling system

substantiate their opinion by the fact that by rejecting the classical

orthography we severed ties with our classical culture.

 

Without concealing that I myself am an advocate of the new

orthography, below I'll try to give reasons why it is impossible to

revert to the old spelling system not proceeding from my own

preferences but basing on a sober analysis of the situation.

 

 

RETROSPECTIVE VIEW ON CULTURE

 

Paruyr Sevak used to say: in order to know Armenian perfectly, one

must know four languages: Grabar (Old Armenian), Middle Armenian,

Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian. It leads a non-professional to

the obvious conclusion: Ashkharhabar (Modern Armenian) and Grabar (Old

Armenian) are different languages (like, for example, Latin and

Italian, the latter being a descendant of Latin) and consequently, it

is not necessary that they should be written with the use of the same

orthography. That classical orthography is more difficult and does not

correspond to the current two Armenian languages is not new: it was

not without reason that its reform became an agenda issue still at the

beginning of the 20th century. The author of that reform (its initial

variant) was not at all a Bolshevik evildoer who negated the past

(often the reform of 1922 is branded as a `Bolshevik Conspiracy'). It

was Manuk Abeghian, who is considered to be the greatest specialists

in medieval Armenian literature until today.

 

So, in fact, the aspiration of the supporters of a return to classical

orthography is that all Armenians will know Armenian as perfectly as

possible, i.e., that they will know not only Ashkharhabar (Modern

Armenian) but also Grabar (Old Armenian). It is a very welcome

aspiration, but, unfortunately, it is an unfeasible luxury for us. Let

those who advocate classical orthography tell Italians: you break ties

with your glorious Roman past, and in the name of restoration, adopt

the Latin orthography. Or try to convince Germans to restore the

pre-Lutheran orthography, and the Russians to restore their old

orthography, explaining to them that after the spelling reform in 1918

(also initiated by the Bolshevik government) they lost the spirit of

their epics. Be sure that your suggestion will at least perplex

them. Your interlocutors will explain that the currently applicable

orthography does not at all prevent them from being aware of their old

culture (indeed, I am not sure that I can understand Narekatsi worse

than the one who writes Modern Armenian using the Old Armenian

orthography). True, there are languages, such as English for example,

that have not changed their spelling for centuries, but many did

change. But going back to the pre-change spelling system after an

effected change is perhaps unprecedented. Don't we, Armenians, have

any other domain to distinguish ourselves from others in the world?

 

 

PERILS OF LITERACY

 

Every spelling reform is painful for a literate man. The example of

one German newspaper is notorious. The paper decided to study whether

it was possible to waive the illogical rules of German spelling

according to which upper case is used in writing all nouns. It started

to publish one article every day with lower-case nouns. The experiment

was put an end very soon to by the angered readership.

 

From this perspective, the 1922 spelling reform (even if we consider

it to be a fatal error) was carried out in a very convenient time when

the sweeping majority of Armenia's population was illiterate. Due to

that circumstance, there was no need to conduct a mass reeducation

campaign: most people simply began to write and read using the

modified orthography only. Today, the situation is different, and like

in every country that has a high degree of literacy, an attempt to

reform orthography in Armenia will meet with stiff public

resistance. In case of change resistance is sure to emerge also in the

`distant' Diaspora, but I dare predict that it will be on a smaller

scale. The reason is evident: the Diaspora (I hate this to sound

insulting) is less `literate' than Armenia when it comes to the mother

tongue.

 

I mean the following. All citizens of Armenia, including

non-Armenians, study the language, while in Diasporan communities the

study of the language is optional (unfortunately, only a minority

chooses it). In Armenia schools are really Armenian, that is, they

teach all subjects in Armenian - from history up to chemistry, while

in the Diaspora children attending Armenian schools use their mother

tongue only in studying the language proper, history and related

subjects.

 

In Armenia, written Armenian is an active language. The citizens of

Armenia write in Armenian most of their daily correspondence,

beginning from business contracts, bank receipts and court suits and

ending with letters and kids' scrawl on walls. Most of Diasporan

Armenians, even if they can write and read in Armenian, at best do so

out of their business activities, simply, to say so, for their

pleasure. There is one more problem, a change in the usual mode of

spelling would create more difficulty for those who write, rather for

those who read (for example, residents of Armenia can well read the

texts written with the use of old orthography). And, as residents of

Armenia not only read, but also write in Armenian more often than

their Diasporan compatriots.

 

In short, Armenian in Armenia is a state language, in the Diaspora -

it is not.

 

It obviously follows from what was mentioned above that to carry out a

spelling reform in Armenia is a much more difficult thing to do than

in the Diaspora. It would be so even if the new orthography was more

difficult than the classical one, but as it is, in fact, vice versa,

the complication gets tripled.

 

 

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

 

Even if we agree that the 1922 spelling reform was a fatal error, then

to make an opposite step in Armenia today would be an awfully

difficult, not to say impracticable thing to do.

 

The change in the spelling of the state language in Armenia must be

carried out at once, at the state level, from top to bottom: more than

one orthography cannot be applied in a country. It means that all

citizens of the republic, in particular, all officials (from the

president and judges to the lowest-ranked policeman) must admit that

they are illiterate and begin studying an orthography alien to

them. No one can predict from what moment it will be possible to

consider that the country is already prepared for passing on to a new

orthography.

 

Meanwhile, in the `distant' Diaspora the reform can be made gradually,

implanting the new orthography in the course of years. The application

of two orthographies at a time is quite acceptable there. By the way,

this phenomenon already exists - many of those who left Armenia

recently use the new orthography, and there are even newspapers using

the new orthography there.

 

 

PSYCHOLOGICAL HANDICAPS

 

There will emerge no less serious psychological obstacles to the

re-establishment of classical orthography in Armenia. A considerable

part of Diasporan Armenians, at least those whose active language is

English or French, find it quite natural that there is no unequivocal

interconnection between the way a word is written and pronounced. For

example, a native speaker of English is used to spelling out a word

unknown to his interlocutor (in a letter-to-letter way) after dropping

it in a conversation. Meanwhile, an Armenian taught to write using the

new orthography has no need for any `spelling', the orthography he

knows makes it possible to decide the way the new word is to be

written in 99 cases out of 100. For this reason, the following

scenario can be predicted. When Armenia's Armenian hears the name of

the French city of Marseilles (Marsel in Armenian), he puts it down

without thinking, as he knows a clear rule: the sound [e] in an inner

position is always written with the corresponding letter `e' (`yech',

the 5th letter of the alphabet). The advocates of classical

orthography will tell him: so that you maintain ties with your

forefathers' high culture, from now on you must remember that the

sound [e] in this word must be written with the use of `e', the 7th

letter of the Armenian alphabet. Armenia's Armenian will naturally

protest: `For which of my sins do I have to cudgel my brains? What has

the city of Marseilles to do with Mesrop Mashtots?'

 

 

 

POLITICAL PROBLEMS

 

Let's consider the most formidable challenge - the political one. An

orthographic reform in Armenia can only be carried out according to a

decision made by its leadership - the President and Parliament, and,

unconditionally, only through a referendum. Obviously, new

difficulties besides those considered above will arise, and they will

immediately become a subject of active political speculations. For

example, it is not difficult to foresee the following. As we already

mentioned, along with other traps, the reform is a very expensive

pleasure to afford: first, teachers are to be retrained, then the

entire population of the country is to be taught anew; new literature

is to be printed in huge volumes; road signs, paper money, seals,

passports and other things bearing inscriptions are to be replaced by

new ones. What will be the source of financing this tremendous project

if Armenia cannot even afford to pay its officials decently? They say

that some philanthropists from the Diaspora have volunteered to

allocate funds to this effect. But as soon as someone just mentions

it, no doubt, there will begin a real storm in Armenia: `Don't we have

anything else to spend money on? People do not have enough to eat and

do not have proper clothes to wear, people are abandoning the country

and you're wasting huge money only to complicate our orthography.'

Only a leader inclined to political suicide will take the initiative.

 

Let's not forget another aspect of our reality - emigration still

looms large in the country as Armenians continue to abandon their

homeland. They leave, of course, in search of livelihood. But for

many of those leaving Armenia it has become something like itching,

they concoct all imaginable and unimaginable excuses to convince their

neighbors and themselves that Armenia `is the wrong place to live

in'. I have no doubts that the probable change in orthography will

give a fresh and drastic impetus to such sentiments. They'll say:

`Armenia is the only country that makes the lives of its citizens

miserable by means of complicating orthography. It's not a country to

live in.' And we will no longer be able to object to this. It will,

indeed, be the only such country in the world.

 

 

WE MUST RESPECT THE STATE

 

Hereby I could put a full stop to my arguments, but I find it

necessary to add another remark, probably the most arguable one.

 

I mentioned above that during the Bolshevist rule it was not only

Armenian that underwent an orthographic change. Four years before the

reform of Armenian orthography, in 1918, the Bolshevist government

also carried out a reform of Russian orthography, simplifying the way

of writing many words, abolishing a number of archaisms and even

excluding some letters from the alphabet.

 

Similarly, the reform in the Russian spelling system sparked off a

vigorous protest among the Russian Diaspora. However, hardly a decade

had passed that the Russian Diaspora put up with the new orthography,

and the Russian Church followed suit. The Russian Diaspora, which, for

sure, was no less opposed to the Bolsheviks than the Armenian

Diaspora, did not consider itself to be entitled to oppose the

decision of the then Russian State. Alas, the Armenian Diaspora was

less respectful of the contemporary Armenian State. The most painful

is that the Armenian Church acted the same way. And here is the result

- we still have no Holy Bible orthographically meant for an Armenian

living in Armenia. Even the latest Eastern Armenian translation was

printed with the use of classical orthography alien to the residents

of Armenia as if for maintaining the existing gap between the Church

and the public at large. The foreign sectarians, whose fast spread in

Armenia is a matter of widespread concern, take care not to make this

elementary mistake in their preaching strategy: it does not occur to

them to bring literature written in classical orthography to

Armenia. By the way, I retract my statement made at the beginning of

the article: there is at least one external force interested in our

orthography's remaining divided, namely, the sectarians.

 

From a political analyst's point of view, it is obviously the Diaspora

and the Church rather that the Armenian Government that committed a

fatal error for the simple reason that arguing with the state over

this issue is improper. It is possible to dispute a pending change,

but if the state has taken some step, it means that it is always right

ever since.

 

So, I urge my compatriots from the distant Diaspora and our Church

fathers to start writing Old Armenian applying the orthography that

has been used in the Armenian State by four generations of people, for

as long as 80 years now. It will be both a way to pay tribute to the

Armenian State and a contribution that can hardly be estimated in

monetary terms. Simply, we must admit one thing: it is the Republic of

Armenia that is, first of all, the center of Armenians.

 

 

--

Haroutiun Khachatrian is an economy and political analyst in Yerevan,

Armenia. He publishes articles in Armenian newspapers and on the

www.eurasianet.org site. He is the Editor-in-chief of the Noyan Tapan

Highlights weekly.

Edited February 28, 2005 by Arpa

[Harut]

Hey thanks Sip!

 

I also found this a while back for the Armenian alphabet:

 

http://www.menq.am/tarer_main.htm

 

Yours is good in terms of vocab, mine in terms of sound. Great combination!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

very good site... but the word pronounciations didn't quite sound right... intonation, i should say... i seems they put the accent on the wrong syllable, not on the last one... sounded more like singing than speaking...

[nairi]

very good site... but the word pronounciations didn't quite sound right... intonation, i should say... i seems they put the accent on the wrong syllable, not on the last one... sounded more like singing than speaking...

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Yeah, I see what you mean. Sounds a bit like the intonation mothers have toward their young children. But the letter are fine, no? I was playing around with it for while making music zh, zhe, zhamanak, zhe, zh, zhe, zhamanak, zhe, zhe, zh, zhe, zhamanak, zhamanak

[Verginne]

Thanks Vava

 

Iran01, I'll try next time. I'm afraid that if I edit my post now, the font will get lost. Maybe it won't, I don't know. Vava, wanna try? Otherwise do as Vava said, if you can. As for transliteration, okay, but the point is that you learn to do that by yourself But I might for the next few lessons, just to make it easier. Meanwhile one correction in your transliteration:

 

we - menk

 

ե is pronounced as e in the middle of words as I wrote in my first post. Otherwise you got it right (if I made out your spelling correctly - some letters didn't come out right, but I'm assuming it's okay).

 

Oh and է is always pronounced as e, so "na e", not "na ye".

 

Edit: I changed almost everything to size 4.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

I have a couple of Armenian fonts installed on my computer but where your Armenian letters are supposed to be I only see empty boxes. What else do I have to install in order for the letters to show up?

[Gor-Gor]

Arpa: Asdvadz im, don't get me started on the Soviet bastardization of Armenian orthography. Although I can read Armenian written with Soviet orthography perfectly well, it frustrates me to no end to see it. Every other word, I think to myself "WRONG!" *sigh* Poor huin...

[Arpa]

I had not read the above address by Harutiun Khachatrian in full.

Here are some highlights and comments.

-----------

 

Who is this “himar”?

The best translation of “idiot”.

Note that “himar” is used in the Arabic to mean “ass/donkey”, not to forget the Armenian “hamarr/jamarr/yamarr”, obstinate/stubborn, usually attributed to mules/jackasses.

 

 

Haroutiun Khachatrian is an economy and political analyst in Yerevan, Armenia. He publishes articles in Armenian newspapers and on the www.eurasianet.org site. He is the Editor-in-chief of the Noyan Tapan Highlights weekly.

 

I am not sure if that is the way he spells his name, HarouTIUN rather than HarutYUN. It is curious that he uses the combination of I and U just as in the classical Armenian Ini-Hyun.

 

 

 

So far, mainly professional linguists have discussed the issue, i.e.  whether it was right or wrong to reject the classical orthography in 1922. I'll try to analyze the problem as a public-political rather

than a linguistic one, since the establishment of unified orthography

in Armenia and in the Diaspora is a political issue that eventually

will have to be solved by politicians.

 

Yeah! “professional linguists”. Let them speak while you stick to your profession of economics. Speaking of which; Where is that so called “economy” of your much admired overlords?

 

 

Paruyr Sevak used to say: in order to know Armenian perfectly, one must know four languages: Grabar (Old Armenian), Middle Armenian,

Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian.  It leads a non-professional to

the obvious conclusion: Ashkharhabar (Modern Armenian) and Grabar (Old

Armenian) are different languages (like, for example, Latin and

Italian, the latter being a descendant of Latin) and consequently, it

is not necessary that they should be written with the use of the same

orthography. That classical orthography is more difficult and does not

correspond to the current two Armenian languages is not new: it was

not without reason that its reform became an agenda issue still at the

beginning of the 20th century. The author of that reform (its initial

variant) was not at all a Bolshevik evildoer who negated the past

(often the reform of 1922 is branded as a `Bolshevik Conspiracy'). It

was Manuk Abeghian, who is considered to be the greatest specialists

 

It is ironic that he brings the Latin and Italian model. Even if Italian is to Latin as ashkharhabar is to grabar, is it not incumbent on him to show us how many versions of Italian orthography there is? Remember that over a hundred million speak and write in Italian. Compare that to about two million that read and write in Armenian. We have already spoken about the 5 billion that read and write in English.

 

 

From this perspective, the 1922 spelling reform (even if we consider it to be a fatal error) was carried out in a very convenient time when the sweeping majority of Armenia's population was illiterate.  Due to that circumstance, there was no need to conduct a mass reeducation campaign: most people simply began to write and read using the modified orthography only. Today, the situation is different, and like

 

Illiterate!!??

Yes!

When!?

Who!?

 

 

I mean the following. All citizens of Armenia, including

non-Armenians, study the language, while in Diasporan communities the

study of the language is optional (unfortunately, only a minority

chooses it). In Armenia schools are really Armenian, that is, they

teach all subjects in Armenian - from history up to chemistry, while

in the Diaspora children attending Armenian schools use their mother

tongue only in studying the language proper, history and related

subjects.

 

This is highly divisive and prejudicial. Brings to mind another diatribe that was directed towards the diaspora by that infamous Gevorg Abov who in his poem directed to the Dashnaks, “Menq Chenq Moratsel” (1944) writes these memorable words;

 

“Duq Dashnak shner,

Duq Hay geghjukin

Stipel eq choqwl

Ev ir sirtn i ver

Parpel mauser-

Ayd chenq moratsel.”

 

(Please! This is not to debate Dashnak vs whatever. The so called poet above used the “dashnak” designation as a substitute to “diaspora”.)

 

To which Andranik Zarukian replies in his “Tught ar Yerevan” (Letter to Yerevan). The most memorable lines;

 

"Karogh en mardik khakhtel lernerin,

U bazki uzhov sandzel geterin,

Bayts ove e karogh

Zhamanakneri vjir@ yeghdsel,

Ev dyutsaznutyan kabuyt erknqum

Shoghatsogh astghin varaguyr qashel..?”

 

What Haroutiun above is doing is nothing less than a call to war once again.

 

 

Even if we agree that the 1922 spelling reform was a fatal error, then to make an opposite step in Armenia today would be an awfully

difficult, not to say impracticable thing to do.

 

Here he speaks about the economic cost of reconversion.

Brings to mind the hot denbate of some years ago about the metrification of America. I should say metrification of the US, since all of America except the US is metric already. The arguments were from the ridiculous to the sublime when little old ladies would write to the editor lamenting; “but, how would I know how far NY is in if we change to kilometers, or how much would the package of meat be in grams and kilograms”? As if the distance and the quantity would change. The whole matter was handled so shabbily when they began to teach the children how many grams a pound is or how many miles a kilometer. Eventually the whole thing was dropped when industry lobbied and convinced those idiots in the congress that it would be economically devastating to retool and refurbish all the factories. And now. Who cares!? Nobody buys US manufactured goods anyway be they metric or else.

Is that what Mr. Khachatrian suggesting? Isolationism?

BTW. Why do they spell their surname as above while it is based on the patronymy of Khachatur?

 

 

 

Let's not forget another aspect of our reality - emigration still

looms large in the country as Armenians continue to abandon their

homeland.  They leave, of course, in search of livelihood. But for

many of those leaving Armenia it has become something like itching,

they concoct all imaginable and unimaginable excuses to convince their

Yeah! Emigration! Is anyone left in Yerevan?

 

 

So, I urge my compatriots from the distant Diaspora and our Church fathers to start writing Old Armenian applying the orthography that has been used in the Armenian State by four generations of people, for as long as 80 years now. It will be both a way to pay tribute to the

Armenian State and a contribution that can hardly be estimated in

monetary terms. Simply, we must admit one thing: it is the Republic of

Armenia that is, first of all, the center of Armenians.

 

“80 years”!!??

Is he suggesting that we forget the 1800 years of classical orthography?

 

Let’s close this with the closing words of Zarukian;

 

“Hey jan Yerevan,

Mi vayrkyani mej orov kanaches,

Tiezerqi dem parqov jajanches,

Mer artsunqi mej hogid janaches,

Hoqud zhpitov mer visht@ jnjes,

Ev pandukhtnerid hayreniq kanches..

Hey jan Yerevan...!!”

[Arpa]

I had not read the above address by Harutiun Khachatrian in full.

Here are some highlights and comments.

-----------

 

Who is this “himar”?

The best translation of “idiot”.

Note that “himar” is used in the Arabic to mean “ass/donkey”, not to forget the Armenian “hamarr/jamarr/yamarr”, obstinate/stubborn, usually attributed to mules/jackasses.

====

This is highly divisive and prejudicial. Brings to mind another diatribe that was directed towards the diaspora by that infamous Gevorg Abov who in his poem directed to the Dashnaks, “Menq Chenq Moratsel” (1944) writes these memorable words;

 

“Duq Dashnak shner,

Duq Hay geghjukin

Stipel eq choqwl

Ev ir sirtn i ver

Parpel mauser-

Ayd chenq moratsel.”

 

(Please! This is not to debate Dashnak vs whatever. The so called poet above used the “dashnak” designation as a substitute to “diaspora”.)

 

To which Andranik Zarukian replies in his “Tught ar Yerevan” (Letter to Yerevan). The most memorable lines;

 

"Karogh en mardik khakhtel lernerin,

U bazki uzhov sandzel geterin,

Bayts ove e karogh

Zhamanakneri vjir@ yeghdsel,

Ev dyutsaznutyan kabuyt erknqum

Shoghatsogh astghin varaguyr qashel..?”

 

What Haroutiun above is doing is nothing less than a call to war once again.

===

BTW. Why do they spell their surname as above while it is based on the patronymy of Khachatur?

===

Yeah! Emigration! Is anyone left in Yerevan?

===

“80 years”!!??

Is he suggesting that we forget the 1800 years of classical orthography?

 

Let’s close this with the closing words of Zarukian;

 

“Hey jan Yerevan,

Mi vayrkyani mej orov kanaches,

Tiezerqi dem parqov jajanches,

Mer artsunqi mej hogid janaches,

Hoqud zhpitov mer visht@ jnjes,

Ev pandukhtnerid hayreniq kanches..

Hey jan Yerevan...!!”

The more things change the more they stay the same! Substitute “dashnak” with a label of your choice. In fact he uses the label to mean “diaspora”.

ԵՐԲ ԵՆՔ ՄՈՌՆԱԼՈՒ?

 

A poem by Gevorg Abov to which Andranik Zarukian wrote Tught Ar Yerevan

 

ՄԵՆՔ ՉԵՆՔ ՄՈՌԱՑԵԼ

Գէորգ Աբով 1944. (ծնեալ Աբովեան 1897-1965 )

 

Մայր որդեկորոյս,

Որդիք որբացած,

Ուրուականներին

Աեդ սովահալած

Երկրում մեր աւեր

Այն ով էր դաւել,

Մենք չենք մոռացել:

 

Ով էր վաճառել

Գիշատիչ գայլին

Ժողովուրդը մեր

Ու գամել ժայռին,

Անրաքամ ու մերկ

Լէ մանուկ, թէ ծեր

Մենք չենք մոռացել:

 

ԴՈՒՔ ԴԱՇՆԱԿ ՇՆԵՐ,

ԴՈՒՔ ՀԱՅ ԳԵՂՋՈՒԿԻՆ

Ստիպել էք չոքել

Եւիր սիրտն ի վեր

Պարպել մաուզեր

Այդ չենք մոռացել:

 

Դուք էիք արիւն

Ու հուր տարածել,

Որ արիւնարբու

Սեւ մոլոխը ձեր

Իր մեծ աւարից

Ձեզ պատառ գցեր

Մենք չենք մոռացել:

 

Որ կը դառնայիք

Ֆաշիզմի ռազմի

Արիւնածարաւ

Շներն անազնիւ,

Արնոտ բորենու

Թաթը կը լիզէք,

Մենք չենք մոռացել:

 

Մեբք չենք մոռացել,

Որ պիտի ջնջենք

Երկրից առ յաւէտ

Սեւ ֆաշիզմի հետ

Նաեէւ հետքն իսկ ձեր

ՈՉ,

ՉԵՆՔ ՄՈՌԱՑԵԼ:

 

In response to the above Andranik Zarukian wrote an epic poem which ends…

Հէյ ջան Երեւան,

Դարերի դիմաց միշտ կանգուն կենաս,

Ու բախտի կոչին յար արթուն մնաս,

Լուսաւոր ճամբէդ անվարան գնաս,

Նախանձ աջքի դէմ ծակող փուշ դառնաս,

Սիրտդ աշխարհին որպէս վարդ բանաս,

Մէկով ցանք անես, հազարով բառնաս,

Հէյ չան Երեւան…

Հէյ ջան Երեւան ,

Միվայրկեանի մէջ օրով կանաչես,

Տիէցերքի դէմ փառքով ճաճանցես,

Մեր արցունքի մէջ հոգիդ ճանաչես,

Հոգուդ ժպիտով մեր վիշտը ջնջես,

Մի օր էլ դարձի շեփորը հնչես

Եւ պանդուխտներիդ Հայրենիք կանչես,

ՀԷՅ ՋԱՆ ԵՐԵՒԱՆ…